coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Miske.
5.  On 2 August 1992 two plaintiffs brought an action in trespass against the applicant before the Kalocsa District Court. After several hearings, a judgment was given on 8 September 1994. On 28 February 1995 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.
6.  In the resumed proceedings several hearings took place. On 18 December 1998 the District Court delivered a partial judgment. On appeal, on 24 August 1999 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of those claims which were unaffected by the partial judgment.
7.  On 10 January 2000 the District Court held a hearing. On 2 May 2000 it suspended the proceedings pending the termination, on 7 February 2002, of a related land registry dispute.
8.  Upon the resumption of the case on 11 December 2002 another hearing was held and an expert appointed. The expert opinion was submitted on 16 June 2003. Between 8 July 2003 and 14 March 2004 the proceedings were again suspended pending the termination of related administrative proceedings.
9.  On 5 July 2004 the District Court adopted a partial judgment concerning damages. On appeal, on 6 January 2005 the Regional Court partly upheld the first instance decision while remitting some claims.
10.  On 13 September 2005 the first instance proceedings continued. Another expert was appointed who filed his opinion on 12 October 2005. On 17 November 2005 and 7 February 2006 further hearings took place.
11.  On 15 February 2006 the District Court gave judgment, finding partly for the plaintiffs. On appeal, on 22 November 2006 the Regional Court heard the parties and appointed an expert who filed his opinion on 5 January 2007.
12.  On 20 November 2007 the Regional Court gave judgment. On 24 June 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Hatvan.
5.  In February 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his job; his former employer also required him to make certain payments in respect of damage allegedly caused while in service. The applicant challenged these measures before the courts as of 16 March 1999.
6.  On 14 September 1999 the Eger Labour Court dismissed his action. On 8 February 2000 the Heves County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.
7.  The resumed proceedings were suspended on 26 March 2000 pending the simultaneous criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant. After the termination of this case, the procedure restarted and the Labour Court gave judgment on 9 March 2004, dismissing the applicant's claims.
8.  On appeal, on 28 May 2004 the Regional Court, in a partial judgment, accepted some of the applicant's claims, holding that his dismissal had been unlawful and reducing the reimbursement payable.
9.  However, on 18 May 2005 the Supreme Court reversed this decision, dismissed the applicant's case and upheld the District Court's judgment. This decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 22 June 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975.
5.  On 2 March 2000 the applicant was first questioned by the police on suspicion of offences in relation to his business activities. The last questioning of the applicant took place on 26 June 2001.
6.  The first pre-trial investigation reports were completed and sent to the public prosecutor on 25 October 2000, 4 December 2000 and 4 October 2001. The last pre-trial investigation report was submitted to the prosecutor on 16 November 2004.
7.  On 22 December 2004 the prosecutor, who according to the Government had decided to join the cases concerning the applicant, preferred charges against him at the District Court. The court held a preliminary hearing on 16 November 2005 and later an oral hearing over a number of days. The applicant was heard before the court for the first time on 12 January 2006.
8.  On 12 April 2006 the District Court issued its judgment with regard to the applicant and 24 other defendants in 11 cases which had been joined. The applicant was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and other economic offences and sentenced to one year and two months’ imprisonment. Jointly with other defendants, he was also ordered to pay some EUR 89,000 with interest to the tax authorities.
9.  In its reasoning the District Court stated that the majority of the criminal acts in respect of all defendants had been committed in 1998 and 1999. The bulk of cases had been lodged with the court on 22 December 2004. The last application for a summons in the joined cases had been filed with the court on 27 July 2005. The court noted that the case concerned particularly wide-ranging economic crimes. The examination of the cases needed to be joined due to the connections between different companies and persons involved. For that reason the court, in sentencing the defendants, took into account only to a lesser degree the time that had elapsed since the commission of the criminal acts and the length of the proceedings as mitigating circumstances. The amount of reduction in the respective sentences was not specified by the court. As regarded the applicant, the court also took into account his previous community service and noted that he had committed the crimes partly while on probation.
10.  On 27 November 2007, having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, including his complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.
11.  On 31 March 2008 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
4.  The applicants are siblings. They were born in 1984 and 1983 respectively and live in Košice.
5.  On 29 March 2000 the applicants claimed payment of an amount then equivalent to 428 euros (EUR) from three defendants before the Košice II District Court.
6.  On 19 March 2007 the applicants informed the district court about their intention to withdraw their action and requested the district court to discontinue the proceedings. They did so after they had learned that it was impossible to verify a signature on a relevant document.
7.  On 7 June 2007 the district court discontinued the proceedings and obliged the applicants to pay the court fees.
8.  On 31 August 2007 the Košice Regional Court, upon the applicants' appeal in respect of the court fees, upheld the first-instance decision. The proceedings finally ended on 24 October 2007.
9.  On 19 March 2007 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before the district court. On 24 May 2007 the Constitutional Court declared their complaint admissible.
10.  On 11 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' complaint. It stated that it could examine complaints concerning length of proceedings only where the proceedings were still pending and the applicants had a genuine legal interest in their continuation. The Constitutional Court held that there had been no legal uncertainty in the case following the applicants' withdrawal of the action and therefore their lodging of the constitutional complaint had been formalistic and unfounded.
4.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1932 respectively and live in Moscow.
5.  In 2000 the applicants bought a flat in a block of flats under construction from ZAO Otdelstroy, a private company.
6.  On 6 June 2002 the applicants sued ZAO Otdelstroy claiming that the flat had a number of construction defects. They requested repairs to be done and claimed damages.
7.  On 9 July 2002 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) dismissed their claims.
8.  On 28 October 2002 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s appeal, set the judgment aside and remitted the case for fresh examination.
9.  At the hearing of 17 December 2002 the applicants further specified their claims, following which the court adjourned the hearing to enable the respondent to familiarise itself with the changes.
10.  The hearing of 21 January 2003 did not take place as one of the applicants failed to appear.
11.  On 6 February 2003 the respondent motioned for involvement of three co-respondents which included two private companies and a municipal agency.
12.  The hearing of 19 February 2003 did not take place due to the judge’s illness.
13.  On 18 March 2003 the court granted the above motion and the applicant’s motion for filing of some additional documents and adjourned the hearing.
14.  The applicants again specified their claims on 14 April 2003.
15.  On 22 April 2003 the proceedings were adjourned to enable one of the co-respondents to study the case file.
16.  The hearing of 28 May 2003 was adjourned at the request of one of the respondents in order to enable it to draw up an act for elimination of the defects in the applicants’ flat. The applicants did not object.
17.  On 17 June 2003 the court scheduled a construction expert examination. The proceedings were resumed on 23 September 2003 when the court again adjourned the hearing following additional specification of the applicants’ claims.
18.  On 10 October 2003 the District Court granted the claims in part, following which the parties appealed. On 18 December 2003 the appeal court sent the case back to the first instance for consideration of the applicants’ objections to the hearing minutes. On 4 February 2004 the hearing at the appeal court did not take place following lack of due notification and the resulting default in appearance of the respondents. On 24 February 2004 the Moscow City Court overturned the judgment of 10 October 2003 and ordered new examination at the trial court.
19.  The hearing of 12 May 2004 did not take place due to the respondents’ default in appearance.
20.  The hearings scheduled for 3 August, 24 September and 15 November 2004 did not take place as the applicants and one of the respondents failed to appear.
21.  On 20 December 2004 the court decided that the defaulting parties had been duly summoned and left the claims without consideration.
22.  Neither of the parties provided a copy of the above decision or the hearing minutes recorded between 12 May and 20 December 2004.
4.  The applicant is a retired military officer and lives in Athens.
5.  On 31 January 2003 he lodged a recourse with the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal seeking the annulment of a presidential decree dated 26 November 2002, according to which compulsory retirement was ordered, because he had been found to be incapable of working, due to health problems. The applicant also challenged the legality of the medical opinion given by the members of the military committee who had evaluated his physical abilities.
6.  On 10 February 2006 the Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed his recourse. First, the court held that the applicant's allegations regarding the legality of the medical opinion given by the members of the military committee had to be rejected as inadmissible because, under the national legislation, the applicant had to exhaust a preliminary administrative procedure before having recourse to a court. Moreover, the court found that the decree in question was well reasoned (judgment no. 214/2006).
7.  On 14 July 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.
8.  On 3 April 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the findings of the Administrative Court of Appeal. In particular it found that the appellate court had rightly declared inadmissible a part of the applicant's allegations on the ground that he had not used the preliminary administrative remedy. Further, it was pointed out that the medical opinions in question had been brought to the applicant's notice in good time so that he could lodge an application with the responsible administrative authority. Finally, the court ruled that the Court of Appeal had adequately reasoned its findings concerning the legality of the abovementioned presidential decree (judgment no. 1148/2008). The judgment was finalised on 12 June 2008.
4.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1944 and lives in Elos Lakonias.
5.  On 2 March 2000 he lodged an application with the 44th Division of the State's General Accounting Office (thereafter “Accounting Office”) asking an increase in the disability pension that he received because of injuries incurred during his service in the army.
6.  On 20 June 2001 his request was dismissed (decision no. 12018/2001).
7.  On 1st February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο) challenging the decision of the Accounting Office.
8.  By judgment dated 13 May 2005 the State Audit Council dismissed the applicant's appeal after having concluded that the legal requirements for recognition of disability pension were not satisfied (judgment no. 908/2005).
9.  On 12 July 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
10.  On 5 December 2007 the Plenary of the State Audit Council upheld judgment no. 908/2005 (judgment no. 2413/2007). The applicant was served with the decision on 5 February 2008.
4.  The eight applicants were born on the dates listed in the Annex and live in Attiki.
5.  The applicants are employed as nursing staff in the General Hospital of Athens “Georgios Gennimatas”.
6.  On 15 June 1998 the applicants lodged an action against the hospital with the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens seeking the payment of a premium to their salary, ranging between 476,200 drachmas (approximately 1,397 euros) and 720,000 drachmas (approximately 2,112 euros), plus interest.
7.  On 31 January 2000 their claim was partially accepted (judgment no. 467/2000).
8.  On 14 February 2001 the hospital lodged an appeal.
9.  On 27 February 2007 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the First Instance court's decision (judgment no. 1754/2007). The applicants were served with the decision on 22 November 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and he is currently imprisoned in Korydallos.
5.  On 22 October 2004 criminal complaints were brought against him by the Athens First Instance Prosecutor for procuring and repeated rape.
6.  In 2006, on an unspecified date, the Indictment Division of the Athens
Court of Appeal decided to prosecute the applicant and remitted the case to the Athens First Instance Criminal Court (decision no. 303/2006).
7.  On 19 July 2006 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment (judgment no. 2439/2006).
8.  On 21 July 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the First Instance court's findings and its evaluation of the evidence.
9.  By judgment dated 4 May 2009 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's allegations (judgment no. 1245/2009).
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. The appeal was set for hearing on 3 February 2010. It transpires from the case file that these proceedings are still pending.
4.  All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Table I).
5.  In all ten cases, the applicants' flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
6.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
7.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants' claims were granted by different domestic courts which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from the flats.
8.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However the IDP families refused to comply with the judgments and despite the applicants' complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Biskupiec.
5.  On 19 June 2002 the applicant was arrested on charges of arson and uttering threats. On an unknown later date he was indicted before the Biskupiec District Court.
6.  Between 19 March and 19 June 2006 the applicant was detained on remand.
7.  On 3 June 2003 the District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
8.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant appealed against his conviction.
9.  On 16 October 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
10.  Between 19 October 2005 and 29 March 2006 the District Court held seven hearings. On several occasions the applicant who was duly summoned, refused to appear at hearings. However, the court proceeded with the trial in his absence.
11.  On 31 March 2006 the Biskupiec District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
12.  On 14 September 2006 the Olsztyn Regional Court again quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
13.  On 3 June 2009 the Gizycko District Court again convicted the applicant as charged.
14.  On 27 July 2009 the applicant filed his appeal against this judgment. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Olsztyn Regional Court.
15.  On 16 and 21 August 2007 the applicant lodged complaints with the Białystok Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Olsztyn Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction.
16.  On 7 November 2007 the Court of Appeal gave a decision and dismissed the applicant’s complaint.
17.  On 19 June 2008 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed yet another complaint under 2004 Act lodged by the applicant. The court considered that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings.
18.  The applicant was also involved in several other sets of criminal and civil proceedings, in particular, proceedings concerning assaulting a judge and contempt of court. The proceedings were terminated respectively on 24 October 2005 and 14 March 2007 by the Olsztyn Regional Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kaunas. He was an accountant of a holding company.
5.  In 1994 the applicant became a suspect in a criminal case of fraud.
6.  By investigator's decisions of 29 October 1994, 1 February and 15 May 1996 the applicant's property was seized.
7.  On 28 August 1996 the applicant was charged with unlawful financial activities, fraud, and breaching the currency and securities regulations. Four other persons were charged as his accomplices. It was suspected that the co-accused had misappropriated large sums of money which had been deposited by private persons and companies. More than hundred victims were identified.
On the same day the investigators ordered the applicant not to leave his place of residence.
8.  On 15 October 1998 the Kaunas City District Court convicted the applicant, sentencing him to four years' imprisonment. The applicant was arrested in open court.
9.  On 22 March 1999 the Kaunas Regional Court amended the judgment, acquitting the applicant of some charges and reducing the sentence to two years' imprisonment.
10.  On 30 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts' judgments due to various procedural irregularities. It was established that the applicant had not been given access to the case file, and that the reasoning in the judgments was too vague. The case was returned for fresh examination. The applicant's detention was replaced by an obligation to stay in his place of residence.
11.  On 25 October 1999 the Kaunas City District Court returned the case for an additional pre-trial investigation. On an unspecified date, the case was transmitted to the court for trial.
12.  On 5 January 2004 the Kaunas City District Court again decided to remit the case for additional investigatory measures.
13.  On 25 March 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the decision, ordering the first instance court to proceed to trial.
14.  On 22 June 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision.
15.  On 3 December 2004 the Kaunas City District Court terminated the criminal proceedings because the statutory time-limit for prosecution had lapsed. The civil claims against the applicant and the co-accused were left unexamined. The court also lifted the seizure of the applicant's property.
16.  The applicant appealed against the decision to terminate the proceedings on procedural basis, arguing that he should have been acquitted. By a final ruling of 10 November 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to examine the appeal as the applicant had missed the time-limit for lodging it.
3.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ankara.
4.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant brought compensation proceedings against the Governor of Kayseri, along with another person, before the First Chamber of the Kayseri Civil Court (case no. 2003/570).
5.  On 22 April 2005 the Governor of Kayseri brought counter‑proceedings for compensation before the Fourth Chamber of the Kayseri Civil Court (2005/168). On 11 September 2006 the cases were joined.
6.  On 5 June 2008 the court of first instance rejected both claims.
7.  On 11 May 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Kayseri Civil Court and on 8 October 2009 it rejected the applicant's rectification request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Mažeikiai.
5.  On 17 January 1996 the Lithuanian authorities decided to charge the applicant with the embezzlement of 1,000,000 Lithuanian litas (LTL), which his company had given him to purchase certain equipment. Given that prior to the latter date the applicant had fled Lithuania, the prosecutors ordered a search for him. It was also decided that, once apprehended, the applicant would be placed in detention.
6.  On 16 May 1996 the authorities apprehended the applicant in Latvia, brought him to Lithuania and placed him in detention. The same day the applicant was informed about the charges against him.
7.  On 15 August 1996 the applicant was released from detention and placed under house arrest. When questioned before a pre-trial judge, the applicant asserted that, whilst staying in Latvia, he had no information about his search. The applicant admitted that his wife had visited him in Riga a couple of times; however, she had never told him about pending criminal charges against him.
The applicant remained under house arrest until 19 April 2006.
8.  Later on in 1996 the prosecution charged the applicant with having fraudulently reported a crime and with forgery of an official document.
9.  On 22 June 1998 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the case was transferred to the Mažeikiai District Court.
10.  On 2 December 2002, 3 and 22 April 2003 the hearing of the case was postponed, since some of the applicant's co-accused failed to appear in court.
11.  On 2 September 2004 the Mažeikiai District Court dismissed as time-barred the charges against the applicant for forgery of documents and fraudulent reporting of a crime.
12.  The same day the Mažeikiai District Court convicted the applicant and six of his co-accused of having acted in an organised group of persons who fraudulently acquired property of a significant value. The applicant was sentenced to two years and six months of deprivation of liberty.
13.  The applicant appealed.
14.  On 25 November 2004, 12 September 2005 and 9 February 2006 the examination of the case on appeal was postponed because the lawyers for the applicant and the co-accused failed to appear in court.
15.  On 19 April 2006 the Šiauliai Regional Court amended the lower court's judgment. It convicted the applicant of assisting in fraudulently acquiring property of a significant value, and reduced the sentence imposed by one year.
16.  On 14 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.